ACLU challenges Narragansett party penalties
1:00 PM Fri, May 23, 2008 | Permalink
Email
 |
 |
Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« Priest, family friend, remembers Pagano 'cherished life' |
Main
| Reporter's query: Planning a Sex and the City party? »
The ACLU's Rhode Island chapter today filed a lawsuit calling unconstitutional Narragansett's regulation that lets police charge renters/tenants and landlords for "unruly gatherings" in residences and put orange stickers on the homes. An ACLU suit in Superior Court against the South County coastal town is on behalf of the University of Rhode Island's Student Senate and four students and three landlords who, according an ACLU news release, have been affected by the ordinance enforcement. The ordinance violates the plaintiffs’ rights to "procedural and substantive due process, privacy and freedom of association," the ACLU asserts. The ordinance “gives sole discretion to the police department” to put stickers on houses where alleged unruly gatherings happened, “without any opportunity for a hearing or appeal by owner or renter.” -- projo.com staff writer Michael P. McKinney, with Journal archival reports Plaintiffs David Keach, Timothy DeMerchant and Michael Spatcher face pending charges in district court of violating the ordinance, the ACLU says. Two other plaintiff URI students, Warren Byrne and Ben Cuddy, were evicted after the police put an orange sticker on the house they were renting and, the ACLU says, had to pay rent for the rest of the school year for both that residence and their new one. Landlord plaintiffs Walter Manning and Steven and Karen Jedson own houses that received an orange sticker. They assert it adversely affected their ability to rent the houses, the ACLU says. 
CommentsLeave a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
New comments
New photos
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
Another case where the ACLU has it wrong. Narragansett finally established accountability for the owners and tenants of these "party houses" that drain local public safety resources primarily police and EMS. There are times that the streets are not passable for emergency vehicles due to parked vehicles for these parties. That endangers everyone, the partiers and the neighbors. Don't the abutting owners who reside in their homes deserve some peace without retalliation from the partiers? Narragansett finally got it right with one exception: The ordinance should be year round to include the absentee landlords who occupany these homes during beach season or get outrageous weekly rents for these party houses.
Report Abuse
Dan is right with his first comment!
Enforce the parties so people cant do what they want at their own homes and the ones they rent!!
Hopefully that way more people will go to bars and drink and then drive home drunk!!
maybe it will cut down public safety resources and make the roads safer!!!
Report Abuse
Let's get to the point of the matter -- the punishment is unfair. Dan's comments regarding the street parking and use of town resources is true and most everyone who lives in Narraganset would agree -- I don't want a party house next door to me. However, how in the world is the landlord to know when he rents the home that the renters are going to have parties? My understanding is that the landlord being fined is what the ACLU is fighting. Not only is the landlord being fined some $300.00 but the tenants are then being forced out of the home by the town causing a hardship on the landlord who may be on a fixed income or is renting during the winter so that he can afford to stay during the summer. Not to mention, the orange sticker on the house is like the scarlet letter. The answer is to give the offending tenant progressive punishment. Start with a violation ticket with a small fine, second offense --increase the fine, third offense -- increase fine, and if fines are not paid the court could enforce taking away driving privledges and perhaps since URI is usually involved, perhaps suspend the student(s) after 2-3 offense. In the end, the ACLU is right on with this complaint, Dan must not own a rental house, can you imagine being fined $300 for not doing anything wrong! What country are we in?
Report Abuse